What do you think is wrong with that definition, and do you have an alternative? — Philosophim

The highest presentment of humanity seems always to be through crime.

Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve.

For some, what is "good" is literally that which is deemed "bad."

What do you think is wrong with that definition, and do you have an alternative?
— Philosophim

The highest presentment of humanity seems always to be through crime.

Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve. — DifferentiatingEgg

That didn't answer the question. If you don't give an answer to that question, then that means mine has every reason to stand.

It's idealic, you're pretending good should be and thus bad wont be. You're trying to kill off half of human nature by saying it shouldn't exist.

It will exist regardless because bad is intrinsic to human nature as we base it off of human actions (at least in part [nature is bad too]). It doesn't reflect reality.

Its like saying everyone should be white, or everyone should be muscular and fit.

It's idealic, you're pretending good should be and thus bad wont be. — DifferentiatingEgg

Alright, that's one part, but you didn't provide your own definition.

First, I'm not defining good and bad as you think I am.

Good - What should be
Bad - What shouldn't be

Its not that good WILL be and bad WON'T be, its that good is a more favorable reality then bad.

That's not idealic, because I'm noting there is possibly an objective evaluation and means of measuring this. Thus its not an ideal based on human emotion or desire, but rational thought.

My man, I proved it logically in my P1 P2 C statement.

Good and Bad should be. Since you can't have good without bad.

You're trying to sneak around that last bit of the conclusion.

You're like, I agree, but I think afterwards we kill that bad!

Not how logic works. That's ultimately a different conclusion and requires different premises.

My man, I proved it logically in my P1 P2 C statement. — DifferentiatingEgg

And I presented to you a counter that you have not fully addressed. So until then, my point stands.

The problem with this statement is that you haven't just declared that an objective morality cannot exist. This statement declares that nothing objective can ever exist. — Philosophim

No it doesn't. I accepted that a moral value can exist. But if it's a product of "random existence", there are 2 implications:

1) it's existence is contingent. It didn't have to exist.
2) it's value is contingent. Its converse could have existed.

The same would be true of anything else with "random existence". But if "don't steal" could have randomly come out as "do steal", there is no objective reason to follow it.

1) it's existence is contingent. It didn't have to exist. — Relativist

Everything's existence is contingent. Nothing had to exist. This is not an argument against the existence of an objective morality. A red wavelength of light never had to exist, yet its still an objective classification. You have not answered this counter point the last few times I've pointed this out and only repeated your own. If you simply list the same argument again without answering this I will assume at this point that you understand the point and are unable to adequately challenge it.

2) it's value is contingent. Its converse could have existed. But if "don't steal" could have randomly come out as "do steal", there is no objective reason to follow it. — Relativist

No, it could not have. First, you don't even know if this initial point leads to whether stealing is right or wrong. Second, the OP's claims is only about whether there should be existence. That's the entire point of the OP, to demonstrate an objective morality has a logical and certain answer to this question. An objective morality cannot exist that states "Existence should not be" as that is a logical contradiction. Go back to the OP and bring up the points if you wish to counter this conclusion.

An objective morality cannot exist that states "Existence should not be" as that is a logical contradiction. — Philosophim

"Should" only applies only to choices made by beings that can make choices. It would make no sense to claim an electron "should" be attracted to a proton. That attraction is a necessary fact.

To suggest that "existence should be" is incoherent because it would imply a being exists who makes the choice for there to be existence. It's self-contradictory.

Everything's existence is contingent. Nothing had to exist. — Philosophim

If there is an uncaused first cause, how could it have NOT existed? What accounts for its contingency? What is it contingent UPON?

Even if you believe the actual uncaused first cause is contingent, how could there be a state of affairs of nothingness- an absence of anything at all? Existence itself (the fact SOMETHING exists) is metaphysically necessary entailed by the fact that we exist and something cannot come from nothing.

if "don't steal" could have randomly come out as "do steal", there is no objective reason to follow it.
— Relativist

No, it could not have. That's the entire point of the OP. — Philosophim

Your op only claims "existence should be". You haven't explained how that entails the moral imperative "don't steal".

Secondly, you had referred to moral imperatives being the product of randomness- and THAT is the basis of my claim that each moral imperative could have come out as its converse. If that is not the case, then explain what you mean by "randomness" in your context. Why couldn't this imperative have come out as "do steal"?

"Should" only applies only to choices made by beings that can make choices. — Relativist

I have several times noted that 'should' does not involve beings. If you are saying it does, and I'm presenting the entire argument that it does not, you need to challenge my point why I say it does not. You have not done that. You are creating a straw man by stating, "Should requires a being, therefore you contradict yourself," when I have noted, "Should does not require a being, but a logical state of existence."

If I was noting that an objective morality requires a being, you would have a point. But I haven't, I won't, and its not going to change. So this criticism does not counter my point. If you merely insist that it requires a being, please point out logically why it does while keeping within the definitions I listed. If your argument is, "Morality is only subjective, therefore it requires a being," that's just circular logic. You're going to have to first note that an objective morality could exist, and why it would require a being for it to exist. If your argument is instead just another roundabout way of saying, "I insist morality is subjective," that's not a viable argument.

Everything's existence is contingent. Nothing had to exist.
— Philosophim
If there is an uncaused first cause, how could it have NOT existed? What accounts for its contingency? What is it contingent UPON? — Relativist

You may want to read my post on this here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1 I go over the logic of uncaused origins and what it entails. I'll try to summarize the point here.

When thinking upon the fact that the universe was ultimately uncaused by anything else, you realize that anything could have happened. Odds are calculated based on contingencies. There are four jacks in a deck of cards, which is why if we don't know the shuffle order we say pulling a card bling has a 4/52 chance of being a jack.

An uncaused universe has no odds. It has no reason that it should have formed, and it has no reason that it should not have formed. There is no limit as to what could form, and no limit as to what could not form. There is no cause behind it, so there is no rule behind it besides the fact that it now exists. How it exists is where further causality and rules of the universe are made. It is contingent upon nothing prior.

Even if you believe the actual uncaused first cause is contingent, how could there be a state of affairs of nothingness- an absence of anything at all? Existence itself (the fact SOMETHING exists) is metaphysically necessary entailed by the fact that we exist and something cannot come from nothing. — Relativist

How could there be a state of affairs that there is existence at all? The same as a possible state of affairs in which there is no existence at all. There is no contingency for existence. No prior causation. It simply is, and it had no reason to be or not be. We believe something cannot simple 'be' without prior cause in the universe, but logically, its the only conclusion that works.

Now if you are talking about, 'what is', that's a different story. And that's my point on an objective morality. It is 'what is'. We do not include any reference to a prior cause of the universe because that's pointless. An objective morality if it exists is within the universe that is, just like everything else. It does not exist on some outside intention, but would be an existent thing in the universe just like a wavelength of light.

Your op only claims "existence should be". You haven't explained how that entails the moral imperative "don't steal". — Relativist

Correct. Thus why your point is a straw man. If you want to figure out what I ultimately conclude on that, you'll need to read the next section. I've mentioned several times the limited scope of this particular OP, and noted that if you want to answer some of your other questions that go beyond the scope of this OP, you'll need to read the next section.

Secondly, you had referred to moral imperatives being the product of randomness- and THAT is the basis of my claim that each moral imperative could have come out as its converse. If that is not the case, then explain what you mean by "randomness" in your context. Why couldn't this imperative have come out as "do steal"? — Relativist

No, I clearly stated that everything came out of randomness. So saying that the universe had no intention or causation behind its 'origin' of existence is the same argument that be applied to anything in the universe. Since an objective morality does not require an intention or prior causation, it is a logical part of existence if it exists. I've stated this again and again. Perhaps you just can't comprehend it, it is very different from the normal subjective argument of morals you're likely used to. Bend your mind a bit. And if you still can't understand it, just go with the basic premises of the OP for now and read more. Maybe you'll understand better, have your questions answered, and be able to make a point that demonstrates I'm wrong. Read on to find out why eventually I can make a reasoned conclusion that "do steal" is not an objective moral notion.

You've not presented a counter argument.

Make a p1 and p2 and C that necessarily follows.

P1:All concepts of evaluation require contrast between opposites.

P2:Good and bad are opposites that define each other — DifferentiatingEgg

I encourage you to review several posts back where I agreed with your points 1 and 2 and laid out that your conclusion did not not make sense. I'll be more explicit here again.

↪Philosophim You've not presented a counter argument.

Make a p1 and p2 and C that necessarily follows. — DifferentiatingEgg

P1:All concepts of evaluation that have opposites require contrast between opposites.

P2:Good and bad are opposites of each other

Therefore good is what should be and bad is what should not be.

How can bad not exist when what is good and what is bad is determined by what is within us? You can't reconcile the devaluation of Good by removing the valuation of what's Bad.

How can bad not exist when what is good and what is bad is determined by what is within us? You can't reconcile the devaluation of Good by removing the valuation of what's bad. — DifferentiatingEgg

I'm a little lost. Good is defined as what should be, bad is defined as what shouldn't be.

And you said be = exist.
Thus
good should exist
bad should not exist (to you)

You have a fundamental problem because bad exists.

We observe human nature and detail "good" and "bad" by detailing what exists already

Thus bad exists and thus "bad be," regardless of if it shouldn't or not.

It simply cannot not exist without altering human nature fundamentally.

And you said be = exist.
Thus
good should exist
bad should not exist

You have a fundamental problem because bad exists. — DifferentiatingEgg

"Should" does not mean "does". If what is bad exists, it should not exist. If what is good does not exist, it should exist. Does that address your issue?

I have several times noted that 'should' does not involve beings. If you are saying it does, and I'm presenting the entire argument that it does not, you need to challenge my point why I say it does not. You have not done that. — Philosophim

That is precisely what I've been challenging! The very point you're responding to is such a challenge! Your response should be to explain how "should" applies to objects that lack minds. Asserting it does not explain it.

For reference, here's how it applies to objects with minds (some of them, at least): If John should do X, then he may or may not do X. The should influences his choice; but other urges and desires may also also influence his choice. His choice is contingent, not determined external to himself.

If I was noting that an objective morality requires a being, you would have a point. But I haven't, I won't, and its not going to change. — Philosophim

My point is that you haven't shown how objective morality applies in the absence of minds that have choices to make.

When thinking upon the fact that the universe was ultimately uncaused by anything else, you realize that anything could have happened. — Philosophim

Here's where you go wrong. A material first cause entails an initial uncaused state, not a "happening". But this is an unnecessary tangent. I'm willing to accept your claim as a premise that the initial state could have been something else. I don't see how this helps your case.

Odds are calculated based on contingencies. There are four jacks in a deck of cards, which is why if we don't know the shuffle order we say pulling a card bling has a 4/52 chance of being a jack.

An uncaused universe has no odds. — Philosophim

There are no discrete odds only because your premise implies there are infinitely many possible initial states. This translates to an infinitesimal probability - but it's still a probability.

How could there be a state of affairs that there is existence at all? The same as a possible state of affairs in which there is no existence at all. There is no contingency for existence. No prior causation. It simply is, and it had no reason to be or not be. We believe something cannot simple 'be' without prior cause in the universe, but logically, its the only conclusion that works. — Philosophim

I'm glad to hear you say "there is no contingency for existence", because it sounds like you're agreeing with me that existence is metaphysically necessary. Is that correct?

However, if existence is metaphysically necessary, how does "should" apply?

An objective morality if it exists is within the universe that is, just like everything else. It does not exist on some outside intention, but would be an existent thing in the universe just like a wavelength of light. — Philosophim

I have accepted your premise that moral imperatives exist, but I've argued that everything in a contingent universe is therefore contingent - including a wavelength of light and any moral imperative that happens to exist. Do you agree? If not, why not?

Your op only claims "existence should be". You haven't explained how that entails the moral imperative "don't steal". — Relativist

Correct. Thus why your point is a straw man. — Philosophim

I wasn't making a strawman argument, I was explaining what I inferred from your statements - to afford you the opportunity to correct my understanding. You asserted that objective morality somehow comes forth from your premise "existence should be". That makes no sense to me,

Secondly, you had referred to moral imperatives being the product of randomness- and THAT is the basis of my claim that each moral imperative could have come out as its converse. If that is not the case, then explain what you mean by "randomness" in your context. Why couldn't this imperative have come out as "do steal"? — Relativist


No, I clearly stated that everything came out of randomness.

If EVERYTHING came out of randomness then this includes all moral imperatives.

Since an objective morality does not require an intention or prior causation, it is a logical part of existence if it exists. I've stated this again and again. — Philosophim

You've repeated it over and over, but you haven't explained how it is reasonable for a random moral imperative is an OBJECTIVE moral imperative.

Having objective EXISTENCE does not entail there being something objective about the moral imperative. I've said that a moral imperative pertains only to choices made by things that can make choices. I don't think you've stated either agreement or disagreement. So tell me now.

Perhaps you just can't comprehend it, it is very different from the normal subjective argument of morals you're likely used to. Bend your mind a bit. And if you still can't understand it, just go with the basic premises of the OP for now and read more.

I've been trying for quite some time, and I've brought to your attention the reasons I think your premises are incoherent. I could have walked away from this discussion on that basis, but I've been willing to hear you correct whatever misunderstandings I have. Instead, you just fall back to repeating the same (seemingly incoherent) premises.

Maybe you'll understand better, have your questions answered, and be able to make a point that demonstrates I'm wrong. Read on to find out why eventually I can make a reasoned conclusion that "do steal" is not an objective moral notion.

I infer that you're saying your basic premise doesn't account for all moral values that most of us accept. I presume that you're only saying that moral values which are entailed by your premise are objective values. Is that correct? It would certainly narrow my objections, but you still need to answer the questions I raised above, and will repeat here:

1) How does "should" applies to objects that lack minds. IOW, explain what it means to say "X should Y" where X is an object lacking a mind.
2) You seemed to agree that existence is metaphysically necessary, so how does "should" apply to the fact of a metaphysically necessary existence?
3) everything in a contingent universe is contingent - including a wavelength of light and any moral imperative that happens to exist. Do you agree?
4. You said, "I clearly stated that everything came out of randomness." So please confirm that you agree that moral imperatives (including your foundational one) came out of randomness.
5) Why should anyone pay heed to a moral imperative that is both contingent (see #3) and random (see #4)?

That is precisely what I've been challenging! The very point you're responding to is such a challenge! Your response should be to explain how "should" applies to objects that lack minds. — Relativist

Then I have misunderstood. First, I've already told you this is not a proof that an objective morality exists. This is IF an objective morality exists. If it exists, we can construct a necessary initial premise, then try to build from there. The 'should' is entirely logical. As I've tried to communicate a couple of times now, my theory is this is consequence or property of existence itself. This is not a proof of an objective morality, this is an exploration into what an objective morality would have to necessarily entail if it existed. That's all it requires from you to explore it. To my mind, if there is an objective morality, this is the best place to start. I have seen no criticism from you thus far that has countered this point.

I'm glad to hear you say "there is no contingency for existence", because it sounds like you're agreeing with me that existence is metaphysically necessary. Is that correct? — Relativist

No, existence is not necessary in any regards. It exists today, but it was not necessary that it ever existed at all if we're tracing back to an origin.

However, if existence is metaphysically necessary, how does "should" apply? — Relativist

I explore that in the next post by looking at the idea of existences within existence. This involves identities and quantities at an attempt at some type of measurement. Does a certain combination of basic matter result in overall more existences within a set existence? Again, you'll need to read there, I'm not summarizing an entire post. :)

There are no discrete odds only because your premise implies there are infinitely possible initial states. This translates to an infinitesimal probability - but it's still a probability. — Relativist

Correct. And all probabilities would be equal as there is nothing which would influence one over the other.

I have accepted your premise that moral imperatives exist, but I've argued that everything in a contingent universe is therefore contingent - including a wavelength of light and any moral imperative that happens to exist. Do you agree? If not, why not? — Relativist

This ironically goes too far for me. I really am only asserting IF an objective morality exists. This is not an assertion or proof that an objective morality exists. I have noted that Subjective morality has many problems, and I don't find it impossible for an objective morality to exist. Therefore we do what we can in philosophy, reason though what would necessarily be if it did exist by noting a fundamental question that all moral systems must answer at their base.

As for contingencies, I'm not sure what you mean here. My note was that if we are talking about the origin of the universe's existence, the only thing we can conclude is that the ultimate origin is uncaused and contingent on nothing else. What do you mean when you say a wavelength of light is contingent within the context I'm noting?

If EVERYTHING came out of randomness then this includes all moral imperatives. — Relativist

Correct, I've said that several times now. My note is that this does not diminish its existence if it is real, like it doesn't diminish any other existence if it is real.

You've repeated it over and over, but you haven't explained how it is reasonable for a random moral imperative is an OBJECTIVE moral imperative. — Relativist

For the same reason that a random appearance of a red wavelength of light is still an objective red wavelength of light. If an objective morality is real, it is as real as a wavelength of light. Do you understand?

Having objective EXISTENCE does not entail there being something objective about the moral imperative. — Relativist

And I have not made that claim. I'm noting IF such a thing exists, what logically must the answer to the question, "Should there be existence" is.

I've said that a moral imperative pertains only to choices made by things that can make choices. I don't think you've stated either agreement or disagreement. — Relativist

I have told you from the beginning up until the last post that it does not because the logic of the OP does not require a person to make a judgement. Its simply a logical conclusion. I have told you I personally believe it to be a consequence of existence itself, like a property, and informed you that if you read more, you might better understand what I'm trying to tell you. I have noted this first post is a very limited scope argument, and I build upon it in that second post. If you refuse to read that post, when I am telling you that is part of the answer to your question, then insist I'm not answer your question, then don't be surprised if you don't understand it.

I've been trying for quite some time, and I've brought to your attention the reasons I think your premises are incoherent. — Relativist

And I have answered. Go read the second post. Then continue. If you don't, this conversation will go nowhere as I cannot answer your questions fully from this initial post alone.

I infer that you're saying your basic premise doesn't account for all moral values that most of us accept — Relativist

Correct! Its not an inference, I've been telling you this repeatedly. :D

I presume that you're only saying that moral values which are entailed by your premise are objective values. Is that correct? — Relativist

No. IF there is an objective morality the only thing this post has asserted is that the answer to, "Should there be existence," is yes, because no contradicts itself. I have asserted no more than this at this time.

Your remaining points I've already answered or you'll need to read the next post. And I do appreciate your engagement in the conversation.

Let's focus on this point:

The 'should' is entirely logical. — Philosophim

It sounds like you might say "an electron should be attracted to a proton"?
But clearly the electron has no choice in the matter, so it is more precise to say ""an electron will be attracted to a proton".

This is my issue: "should" typically connotes an outcome that is contingent upon a choice. Broadly speaking (setting aside your premise), this is what is generally meant by moral imperatives: a person may choose to do the right thing, or he may not.

It sounds like you might say "an electron should be attracted to a proton"? — Relativist

No, should would denote a more positive state of existence. But for there to be a more positive state of existence, it must be at its base that existence is itself good, versus there being no existence at all.

This is my issue: "should" typically connotes an outcome that is contingent upon a choice. — Relativist

But since you know I've stated repeatedly that it does not require a being, its a state. Compare state 1 and state 2, and one would be logically better than the other. Go. Read. The. Second. Post. :D Heres the link so you don't have to go back to the first page. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1

It sounds like you might say "an electron should be attracted to a proton"? — Relativist

No, should would denote a more positive state of existence. But for there to be a more positive state of existence, it must be at its base that existence is itself good, versus there being no existence at all. — Philosophim

You had said, "The 'should' is entirely logical." I'm trying to understand what that means. So I gave you an example which you rejected with a reason that I can't understand. What is a "positive state of existence"? What makes one state more positive than another? Give me an example of a "should" that doesn't involve minds.

You referred to your second post. In that post, you said,
"If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing. This is because any morality which proposed that existence should not be would contradict itself."

It's fine to define good as "what should be", but this doesn't explain how "should" applies in the absence of minds to make choices. Equating it to "good" doesn't add anything - because that's still a judgment.

You had said, "The 'should' is entirely logical." I'm trying to understand what that means. So I gave you an example which you rejected with a reason that I can't understand. What is a "positive state of existence"? What makes one state more positive than another?

You referred to your second post. In that post, you said,
"If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing. This is because any morality which proposed that existence should not be would contradict itself." — Relativist

Have you read the entirety of the second post? Do you understand the example of atoms versus molecules that I put forward?

I assumed you meant your second post in this thread. It says nothing about atoms or molecules.

I then went that that other thread you referenced (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1) , thinking that might be what you mean. The only reference to molecules mentions nothing about atoms.

Why can't you just give me an example of a "should" that doesn't involve minds, as I asked? Seems like a simple request.

then you're not really making an argument just making a hypothetical that couldn't happen. If Bad shouldn't exist then niether should Good since they're linked. You can't deny half the equation and expect to exist.

You can't even detail a system of good without the bad. You use circular reasoning in your logic to assume Good and Bad can exist without the other.

Pretty simple to see
1. If only good should exist, and bad should not exist
2. Then in that scenario bad does not, and good has no contrast and begets no meaning
3. If good has no meaning then the statement "good should be" is meaningless and holds no value.

More or less, you've committed the is-ought fallacy...

You're deriving "ought" without properly addressing "is".

If Bad shouldn't exist then niether should Good since they're linked. You can't deny half the equation and expect to exist. — DifferentiatingEgg

Bad is what should not exist. By virtue of good things existing, there is a state of being that would be a possible negation of that good existence, and should not be. I'm not denying any half of an equation here.

You can't even detail a system of good without the bad. You use circular reasoning in your logic to assume Good and Bad can exist without the other. — DifferentiatingEgg

I've never assumed anything like this. This is your thing, not mine. :)

1. If only good should exist, and bad should not exist
2. Then in that scenario bad does not, and good has no contrast and begets no meaning — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't understand how you're getting point 2 from what I wrote. Bad and good are direct opposites of one another.

You're deriving "ought" without properly addressing "is". — DifferentiatingEgg

No I'm noting that what good is, is what ought to be. What evil is, is what not ought to be. I don't understand the issue.

, so are you by saying "good should be" is more along the lines of maximizing good but minimizing bad? If so then I can see what you're saying.

Cause otherwise if you assume you can axe the bad. It's just never going to happen ever. Bad will always exist, and can never not exist, regardless if ot should not, it can only be minimized.

Oh, I didn't realize there was a misunderstanding. The link you went to was a reference I posted earlier to detail the logic that extends from the notion that the universe is uncaused.

The post I intended you to go to is at the end of the OP, which is the second part of this. Now I understand why you haven't gone there. :D Here, I'll link it one more time. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1

Why can't you just give me an example of a "should" that doesn't involve minds, as I asked? Seems like a simple request. — Relativist

I have, its that link. Once you read it if you wouldn't mind, post in that thread so I can keep this one's ideas separate from that. This should give you a much better understanding of what I'm noting, and we'll continue there if there are further questions and critiques. I look forward to it as I need a lot more feedback on that one. I'm not sure how tight it is, and I would love someone else to critique it.

↪Philosophim, so are you by saying "good should be" is more along the lines of maximizing good but minimizing bad? If so then I can see what you're saying. — DifferentiatingEgg

Its about states of existence. As a very simple example imagine a state of existence where someone is murdered, vs where they are not murdered. The good state is what should be, the bad state is what should not be. This is at a very basic level again, which the OP goes over. The link at the end of the OP goes onto the second part.

All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?" — Philosophim

If the answer is that it would good for there to be no existence and bad for there to be existence, then the best scenario would be for there to be no good because once you eliminate all existence, you eliminate good too.

And this is just to draw out the absurdity of suggesting nothingness can have a value, as if there can be an evaluator or evaluation system in an otherwise empty void.

If you eliminate all things to be measured, you also eliminate the measuring sticks.

If the answer is that it would good for there to be no existence and bad for there to be existence, then the best scenario would be for there to be no good because once you eliminate all existence, you eliminate good too. — Hanover

You're close. The OP notes that if there is an objective morality, then the only answer which isn't a contradiction is that there should be existence. If its good for there not to be existence, then that means that morality shouldn't exist. But if your morality says there shouldn't be existence, then it, itself, shouldn't exist. Thus it contradicts itself leaving the only rational answer being "There should be existence".

So if you're saying, "There should be no good," what you're saying is, "It should be, there there should not be." Which means "It should not be, should not be." meaning its nonsensical.